wulf@ping.net.au wrote:

quoted text
> > I've placed a benchmark program at
> > 
> > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/gmcgarry/lockprof.tar.gz
> > 
> > to test the performance of different userlevel locking schemes.
> > It compares RAS locks and CPU locks (inlined and not).  All CPUs
> > (except SH5) should now support CPU locks so the benchmark should
> > compile OK for all machines.  A recent -current should be OK.
> > RAS kernel support for your CPU isn't required.
> > 
> > I'd appreciate receiving the timings on different CPUs.  I guess
> > the results are somewhat academic since there is marginally any
> > difference between the locking schemes.  But numbers are cool.
> > 
> > The assembler routines will be the ones used in the pthread library
> > if it is decided that RAS locks should be used by default on
> > uniprocessor machines.  I guess the jury is still out on that one.
> 
> G'day,
> 
> I'll give it a try on a AMD XP2000+ system tonight. Will data
> received be published? It would make interesting reading for some of us.

That's my intention.

	-- Gregory McGarry <g.mcgarry@ieee.org>